kain_kusanagi said:
I would say that the difference is that I am not trying question anything and you are. You are asking questions based on assumptions and you're only accepting the answered that validate your assumptions that God is flawed. Every question you asked me can posed me with the same question. Why would you assume God is flawed? Or, why can't you accept that God is perfect and as a human that is beyond comprehension? What is the point of a theoretical discussion about a flawed god? God can't be flawed therefore God isn't flawed. If you believe that God's job could have been handled better, you are assuming you understand the purpose and method of God's creation which is hubris in its purest form. If you believe that God is flawed then you don't believe in God and there is still no point to a theoretical discussion. Therefore I am going to assume that your motive for posing such a theoretical questions is not to get an answer, but instead to evoke theological doubt within those with faith. |
I didn't say that God created everything in the OP. I said "the creator" for a reason, and the only assumption I made was that the creator was almighty. The many other assumptions didn't pop up until people brought their gods into the discussion (and everyone have different gods that are based on different assumptions which means I need to be flexible).
I was questioning one thing alone: Why would an almighty being create our universe despite having full knowledge of how the process and result would turn out before creating it? Your take is that we cannot understand the creator's reasoning, and that the question cannot be answered. If you're fine with that answer that's none of my business.
The point with this thread was not to change the minds of the believers, but to point out a question that I wanted answered by them. I offered them an opportunity to give me a reason to agree with them. Saying that the answer is incomprehensible though will not give me one.
